TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore the appellant company and director Sh. Justin Martin have filed four appeals each. 2. Sh. Jitendra Motwani, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the adjudicating authority has heavily relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad vs Caprihans India Ltd. 2006 (195) ELT 240 (Tri. Mum), whereby the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal holding that printing designs/ pictures on PVC sheets resulted into a new product having different commercial identity and amount to manufacture. Sh. Motwani submits that at the time of adjudication, the assessee's appeal were pending before the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the stay, despite this the adjudicating authority decided the matter relying upon the Tribunal's judgment which was against the assessee. He submits that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the matter in favour of the assessee in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. vs CCE 2015 (11) TMI-1170-SC in Civil Appeal No. 563/2006, therefore, the grounds on which the entire demand was confirmed does not exist after the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment. He further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ex. Jaipur vs Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd. 2015 (319) ELT 357 (SC) UOI vs J.G. Glass Industries 1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC) UOI vs Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 8 (SC) CCE & C. Gujarat vs Pan Pipes Resplendents ltd. 2006 (193) ELT 129 (SC) HBD Packaging (P) Ltd. vs CCE Noida 2012 (284) ELT 727 (Tri. Del) Sri Kumar Agencies vs CCE Bangalore 2000 (116) ELT 483 (Trib.) Commissioner vs Sri Kumar Agencies 2007 (216) ELT A24 (SC) Collector of Customs, Madras vs Paper Products Ltd. 2004 (164) ELT 268 (Tri-Del.) M/s Associates Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. Sujjet Sunder Shetty V. Commissioner of C. E. Thane-I 2014-TIOL-449-CESTAT-MUM CCE Aurangabad v. Universal Enterprises 2014 (310) ELT 789 (Tri Mum) CCE Delhi vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC) Mentha & Allied Prodcuts Ltd. vs CCE Meerut 2004 (167) ELT 494 (SC) Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC Land Loosers Travelles Co Op. vs CCE Surat-II 2013 (29) STR 352 (Guj.) Mayil Mark Nilayam vs CCE Chennai 2009 (241) ELT 422 (Tri. Chennai) Tisco Ltd. vs CCE Jamshedpur 2006 (199) ELT 855 (Tri-Mum) 3. On the other hand, Sh. J. Nago....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same chapter heading, therefore, the legislature consciously categorized the printed PVC sheet and unprinted PVC sheet in the same class of the goods, therefore, on the bought out manufactured PVC sheet mere printing activity will not amount to manufacture. The very same issue has been considered in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held that the printing activity on the PVC sheet is amount to manufacture thereafter this judgment has been heavily relied upon by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. However, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal order. According to the ruling the printing of PVC sheet was held to be activity not amounting to manufacture. The Ld. AR tried to distinguish the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the premise that the said judgment has decided that the Tribunal order is beyond the SCN, therefore, this judgment is not on the merit of the case. We perused the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment which is reproduced below: "In the present case we are concerned with printed PVC sheets which have already borne duty of 25%, having been classified under Chapter 39 Heading 39.20, which deals with plastics and articles thereof. We are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the footing that by mere printing, the fabric does not lose its original identity. However, despite this finding of the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner went on to levy Excise duty twice over in respect of the same product, both times under Chapter 39 Heading No. 39.20. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 30th March, 1999 allowed the assessee's appeal and stated that based on the Assistant Commissioner's finding that no different product except the product under Chapter 39 Heading No. 39.20 emerges after printing, the resultant product could not be liable to duty again as no manufacture could possibly be said to have taken place. 5. This finding of the learned Assistant Commissioner was in the appeal filed by the Revenue overturned as follows : "4. After hearing both sides, we find that the Tribunal, while disposing of the assessee's appeal involving the identical issue has, vide his order No. A/1286/WZB/2005/C-III, dated 12-7-2005 has held that printing of sheets would amount to manufacture, inasmuch as a new product having commercial identity of its own emerges. It is also seen that the respondents have also considered, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee's case reported at Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane vs Caprihans India Ltd. 2005 (181) ELT 77 (Tri. Mum), Tribunal decided that due to printing of PVC films no new product comes into existence. This decision of the Tribunal attained as no appeal was filed. Hence as per above Apex Court judgment with Tribunal's decision, the issue stand settled in favour of assessee. No adverse ruling of any court available against the appellant. On the identical product and the activity subject herein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that the printing of PVC sheet is not amount to manufacture, therefore, on the principal of judicial discipline, the said judgment is binding on us. The identical issue has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass Industries (supra) wherein the facts involved was whether the printing decoration carried out on the already manufactured glass bottles is amount to manufacture. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered in negative. The relevant paras of the said order are reproduced below: "18. Learned Counsel for the assessee has also placed before us a copy of Trade Notice No. 28/1980 issued by Pune Central Excise and Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried out. Such duty will undoubtedly be on the value of the printed bottles which will include not only the cost of manufacture of the bottles but also the cost of printing charges. The Revenue cannot be permitted to levy duty twice on the same item when there is no warrant therefor in the relevant provisions of the Act. 21. In the circumstances there is no difficulty in holding that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. ED/SB 682/84-A is erroneous inasmuch as the process of printing is being carried out in a separate premises as found by the Tribunal and such process is not `manufacture' within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 767 of 1991 has to be and is hereby allowed. The order of the Tribunal as well as those of the Collector and Assistant Collector are set aside. The show cause notice issued by the Revenue to the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 767 of 1991 is quashed. 22. It follows that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8316 of 1994 filed by the Union of India has to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. Insofar as Civil Appeal No. 2882 of 1993 is concerned, the contention of the appellant has to be accepted o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and (2) whether the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose but for the said process. In other words, whether the commodity already in existence will be of no commercial use but for the said process. Applying the said two-fold test, the Court held that the plain bottles were themselves commercial commodities and could be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity does not change. They continue to be bottles and, therefore, it cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purpose or are of no commercial use. However, while holding so, the Court drew a distinction between a case where the printing on the bottles was also carried out in the same factory where the bottles were manufactured and a case where the printing on the bottles was being carried out in a separate unit. The Court finally held that if the printing and decoration etc. on such bottles was carried out in a premises different from that in which the bottles were manufactured, the value of the printing will not be includible while determining the assessable value of the excisable goods for c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in contending that the process of coating of the uncoated paper would not amount to a manufacturing process. No different commodity emerges after the coating having distinct features, name use and character. The coated paper continuous to be paper for printing and writing. The ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in CCE v. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills is directly applicable in the present case. The view taken by the Commissioner in the impugned order that the assessee is manufacturing two products, namely uncoated paper and coated paper cannot be accepted. Uncoated paper emerges at one stage of the manufacturing process of coated paper. A reading of the exemption notification would clearly show that it grants an exemption from payment of duty on paper and paper board articles made therefrom upto clearance of 3500 Mts. When the same is manufactured from the stage of pulp and using non-conventional raw material. The objective is apparently to promote use of non-conventional raw material in making paper, paperboard and articles of paper and paperboard. If the interpretation sought to be given by the Revenue is accepted, it will defect the very objective. Under these circumstances, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'films' applies to films whether or not printed. As such printed film would also fall under Tariff Item 39.20 and the Collector is correct in pointing out that if duty is already paid once on such films, they will not be subject to any further duty after printing. We, therefore, confirm the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismiss the departmental appeal as announced in Open Court." On similar issue many more judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, wherein the same view has been taken. As regard, the Ld. AR's submission that since the printed sheet has a different use and marketability, the same is distinct product. This submission stand negated in view of all the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein also the same facts were involved that the use of the printed product has a different marketability and use, despite this fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that printing activity either on the PVC sheet or glass bottle does not bring the new and distinct product. As regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Fitrite Packers (supra) relied upon by Ld. AR, we after careful reading the same found that in that case plain paper was printed with Lo....